During or prior to 1996, two inmates housed in the Protective Custody Unit (PCU) of the Indiana State Farm filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the State violated their rights under the state and federal constitutions and state statutes by treating them differently from inmates in the general ...
read more >

During or prior to 1996, two inmates housed in the Protective Custody Unit (PCU) of the Indiana State Farm filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the State violated their rights under the state and federal constitutions and state statutes by treating them differently from inmates in the general population. The Putnam Circuit Court (Judge Diana LaViolette) certified a plaintiff class consisting of all present and future prisoners who were or would be subject to protective custody subsequent to the filing of the complaint.

The claims of most of the members of the plaintiff-class were settled prior to trial. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the State on the remaining claims.

The plaintiffs appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals (Judge Edward W. Najam) reversed the Circuit Court. Faver v. Bayh, 689 N.E.2d 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). The Court of Appeals held that (1) the State violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying inmates who were voluntarily housed in PCU "idle pay" while providing such pay to general population inmates and inmates involuntarily committed to PCU; and (2) the State violated Title 11 of the Indiana Code by denying education programs to PCU inmates.

The case appears to have remained active for some years following the 1997 Court of Appeals Decision. On January 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Judge John G. Baker) affirmed some unknown action of the lower court via an unpublished Memorandum Decision. Faver v. Bayh, 722 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 2000).